The Observer’s Embarrassing Eric Schneiderman Takedown Attempt, by the Numbers

February 26, 2014

On Wednesday the New York Observer published a profile of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The piece is long, and utterly embarrassing in its exasperated defense of Donald Trump, Observer publisher Jared Kushner’s father-in-law and the target of an ongoing lawsuit by the Attorney General’s office. Worse, it’s an insult to the Observer‘s readers, who are way too media savvy for the shenanigans.

Number of words in the highly unusual “reporting notes” detailing the pains the Observer took to ensure “fair, unbiased journalism throughout the reporting and editing of this story”: 737

Number of months the Observer spent reporting the piece: Eight

Number of reporters who worked on the piece: Two, not including Observer editor Ken Kurson — close, personal friend of Kushner’s — who the article’s bylined author admits did much of the reporting. The first reporter, William Gifford, told BuzzFeed he passed on the assignment when it became clear the Observer “definitely meant to be negative on Schneiderman.”

Conflicts of interest: Three. Jared Kushner, the Observer‘s publisher, his wife, Ivanka Trump, and his father-in-law Donald Trump. Kushner and Ivanka Trump both accuse Schneiderman of improperly soliciting political contributions from them, and Schneiderman is presently suing Donald Trump for scamming students out of $40 million dollars through a series of real estate seminars called Trump University.

Percent of Trump University students unhappy with their experiences, according to the Observer article: Two. “Nearly everybody attending the Trump seminars enjoyed the experience,” the article’s author writes, citing exit surveys collected on the Trump-sponsored website 98percentapproval.com.

Number of references to Schneiderman’s eyelashes, which are thickened by eyedrops the Attorney General reportedly uses to treat his glaucoma: Four, including the article’s Clockwork Orange-inspired artwork.

The Voice reached out to Damien LaVera, communications director for the attorney general’s office, who is quoted in the piece and who is the main subject of the article’s strange and lengthy addendum, for his reaction. LaVera says, “It’s a shame that a once great newspaper chose to use its front page to regurgitate a discredited complaint filed by the father in law of the paper’s publisher. They should have saved themselves eight months of work and simply published Mr. Trump’s complaint verbatim. It probably would have been shorter and easier to read.”

For all its faults — and, let’s be honest, because of its many, many faults — the piece has set our social media streams atwitter. Here is a sample of the reactions. (Want more? Help yourself.)

None of New York’s veteran reporters seem to know anything about @mikecraigisamok, author of Schneiderman hit… which tells you something.

‘The World Trade Center was conceived by vested interests, promoted by pressure groups, brought into being by a handful of powerful men for reasons of monetary gain or personal pressure, and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer’